In democracy, it wil be illegitimate if government is controlling the media. Media is playing a big role in unleashing the various facts about the hypocritic government. Voters must know how the government is doing its duty. Though it will not be easy to digest that media is doing its work autonomously. But to a certain degree, media is working good.
The media puts profit over truth and peoples lives. Media tends to be in such a hurry to get the story out first that it does not wait for to verify facts. Sure, they hide behind key words like "allegedly" or "according to sources" but the public tends to ignore them and take what they hear as fact. Sure, if there is an actual injustice, the public should have peaceful protests but when it is still just a rumor then it can and often does cause injustice. Another thing that should be prevented is giving a criminal recognition. Often times, these are people who only committed the crime for notoriety. One such example is the school shootings. I think if, instead of giving them a name and face, we just called them a looser, or some other derogatory name, people would be less likely to imitate the action. Clearly, the media blows everything out of proportion as it sells more papers or airtime. Clearly we should focus on truth and lives more that profit.
The first amendment clearly gives us freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Having the government control and censor those things would be a direct violation of both.
If the government starts controlling mass media, of course they won't use it for good, they would use it for their own selfish wants.
In all nations polled there is robust support for the principle that the media should be free of government control and that citizens should even have access to material from hostile countries. With just a few exceptions majorities say that the government should not have the right to limit access to the internet. But while most publics say the government should not have the right to prohibit publishing material it thinks will be politically destabilizing, a majority in several predominantly Muslim countries and nearly half of Russians say that governments should have such a right. In many countries, majorities want more media freedom.
The poll of 20,512 respondents was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.Org, a collaborative research project involving research centers from around the world and managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. Polling was conducted between January 10 and October 24, 2008.
Interviews were conducted in 22 nations, though in three of them not all questions were asked. Those nations interviewed include most of the world's largest nations --China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Argentina, Azerbaijan, Britain, Egypt, France, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico, Peru, Poland, South Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and the Palestinian territories. The public in Hong Kong was also polled. These nations represent 61 percent of the world population.
Worldwide Support for Principle of Media Freedom
The broad principle of media freedom gets very robust support. Majorities in all nations asked say that it is important "for the media to be free to publish news and ideas without government control."
On average, 81 percent said it is "important," with 53 percent saying it is "very important." In no country did more than 29 percent say that media freedom is "not very important" or "not important at all."
Citizens are also seen as having the right to read publications from hostile countries. Respondents were asked whether people in their country should "have the right to read publications from all other countries including those that might be considered enemies." Once again, majorities in all countries affirmed this right; on average 80 percent.
The only country with fewer than seven in 10 agreeing was India, where 56 percent agreed. India also had the highest percentage (33%) saying that access to such publications should be limited.
By giving the government the power to control the media, we are literally handing over our rights. If the government controlled the mass media, what stops them from only running the news stories they want? What stops them from stifling the truth, and instead injecting the general population with propaganda?
Media is a source of information and communication that are needed by the society, so if the government control the mass media like creating boundaries between the truth and lies. Its creating chaos of people start to against government and want a free media that have been publish all the time
Are those who support government control of mass media want to be like North Korea, Russia, Syria, Iran, or Cuba? This directly defies the 1st amendment, where anyone can say what they want, believe what they want, or see what they want, without the government telling them not to. Why does the government need to control the media? How does it decide what is good or bad? The government is made out of humans, who are not superior to anything, and there for are still subject to bias and lying and whatnot. What would happen if the government wants to cover up a story, or it wants to ignore a subject all together. This is not just an example of tyranny, this is disappointing that people should support this. Who says the government won't want to profit from this, are you implying that the government are made out of superior beings that don't?
The government has no business controlling the media. This is a direct violation of the first amendment; however, that does not stop it from happening. It is clear that the government controls the media and has for quite some time. It is their way of controlling the people. They can feed us what they want.